Case law

Tangreti v. Bachmann

983 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 28, 2020

Bachmann appealed from the denial of qualified immunity arguing that the scope of supervisory liability for deliberate- indifference claims under the Eighth Amendment is not clearly established after Ashcroft v. … is not clearly established.

Katz v. United States

194 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 1999

On the issue of qualified immunity, the district court held that the law governing the use of force in an arrest was clearly established. … A defendant will always be entitled to qualified immunity when the law governing his or her conduct was not clearly established -the first prong of the qualified immunity defense. 30 As a fallback position, Saucier argues

Winfield v. Keefe

357 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2019

"Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known," City of Escondido, Cal. v. … "The 'clearly established' analysis has two sub-parts." Id.

Rich v. City of Mayfield Heights

955 F.2d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 1992

To determine if the defendant police officers’ actions violated any clearly established constitutional rights such that they would not be entitled to rely on qualified immunity, it is necessary for the Court to decide (1) … We held that: [T]he rights the district court cites as having been clearly established were not particularized rights as required by Anderson and, thus, were not sufficient to deny the defendants qualified immunity.

McCarty v. Stewart

District Court, S.D. Alabama · Apr 22, 2021

Jordan’s constitutional rights in light of the clearly established law at that time”); Lee v. … White, 703 F.3d 147, 152 (5th Cir. 1983)(finding the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he was following an order of his supervisor in arresting the plaintiff and there

Omar Ex Rel. Cannon v. Lindsey

243 F. Supp. 2d 1339 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants, all of whom are being sued in them individual capacities, raise the defense of qualified immunity. … Last spring, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that clarifies how a court is to determine whether a particular right was “clearly established” for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. In Hope v.

Venisee v. Miami-Dade County

District Court, S.D. Florida · May 28, 2025

To qualify as clearly established, a legal principle “must be established with obvious clarity by the case law so that every objectively reasonable government official facing the circumstances would know that the official … was clearly established well before the night of the shooting in 2012.”).

Maldonado v. Marthenz

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 18, 2024

For federal habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), Strickland is clearly established federal law. … See Williams, 529 U.S. at 390 (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’”).

Van Sandt v. Brown

944 P.2d 449 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1997

Under federal case law, 5 a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing a search and seizure if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at the time, … This rule was “clearly established law” at the time Brown searched Van Sandt’s trailer.

West Virginia Department of Health, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, and Allen R. Mock, M.D. v. Dr. Patsy Cipoletti, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of June Cipoletti

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 21, 2024

whether qualified immunity applies on a “case-by-case basis.” 7 We recently summarized our qualified immunity jurisprudence as follows: Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit afforded … Va. 573, 587, 10 Respondent relies on the MPLA as the basis for his position that he has alleged the violation of a “clearly established statutory right” to defeat Petitioners’ claim to qualified immunity

Willard Berry v. Brian Doss

900 F.3d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2018

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), and argued that, because there was no evidence they ignored Berry’s complaint, they did not violate a clearly established Eighth Amendment right and thus were entitled to qualified immunity. … Our jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity is limited to “‘the purely legal issue’ of ‘whether the facts . . . alleged support a claim of violation of clearly established

Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital

272 Conn. 776 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Feb 15, 2005

qualified immunity pursuant to General Statutes §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b. … In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded that the defendants were protected by qualified immunity, pursuant to §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b, and that qualified immunity and not absolute immunity applied to the defendants

Stephen Hill v. City of Fountain Valley

70 F.4th 507 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2023

In short, qualified immunity applies because the Hills have not offered any factually analogous case “clearly 16 HILL V. … Because this law was clearly established at the time of the events here, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Lum v. Koles

314 P.3d 546 · Alaska Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2013

established’ . . . .”) … The officers’ conduct was reasonable and certainly does not violate clearly established law, unlike that of the officers in Headwaters Forest Defense v.

Lytle v. Bexar County, Tex.

560 F.3d 404 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 25, 2009

The Clearly Established Right At the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry, we ask whether the violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … The right in question was therefore clearly established on February 28, 2006, and this is sufficient to affirmatively answer the qualified immunity question of our inquiry.

Whiting v. Tunica County

222 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 19, 2002

— was also clearly established. … The Court notes, under the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, that the contours of this constitutional violation for qualified immunity purposes were clearly established at the relevant time.

Steven Taylor v. Robert Caples

2 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 2021

Because material disputes of fact must be resolved before we can reach the legal argument of whether Caples’s conduct violates clearly established law, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. I. … violated a clearly established federal right.

Stephen Burrell v. Mike McIlroy Glen C. Rector Jeff Thorpe

464 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 20, 2006

Moreover, even if Rule 41 were applicable to the search, at the time of the search the failure to serve a warrant at the outset of a search was not a clearly established violation of the constitution. … Thus, on the facts of this case, the district court did not err in finding that the detectives were entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Clancy v. McCabe

58 Mass. App. Ct. 498 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 8, 2003

The qualified immunity test is a two-step inquiry. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. at 201-202. 1. Whether constitutional violation clearly established. … “[T]he ‘clearly established [right]’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and (2) it was clearly established that a supervisor

Duncan v. City of Sandy Springs

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 14, 2020

was clearly established when the violation occurred. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a defendant violated clearly established law. See Johnson v. Conway, 688 F. App’x 700, 706 (11th Cir. 2017).